Flybe Dash 8 400 nosegear failure at Belfast airport [Archive]

fjencl

10th Nov 2017, 14:06

FLYBE STATEMENT
BE331
Belfast City - Inverness
A Flybe spokesperson confirms:
“Flybe can confirm that one passenger was taken to hospital with a minor hand injury following an incident involving one of our aircraft this afternoon which landed with its nose gear raised at Belfast International Airport at 1330 local time.
There are no further reports of any other passenger or crew injuries.
There were 52 passengers plus one infant on board and four crew members.
We are sending a specialist team to Belfast to offer assistance and we will now do all we can to understand the cause of this incident.
All statements relating to this incident will be posted immediately on the Flybe website at www.flybe.com"

N707ZS

10th Nov 2017, 14:09

Is this the first time the nose gear has had problems on a DHC-8? Its usually the main gear.

fireflybob

10th Nov 2017, 14:11

Flybe plane's nose hits ground at Belfast airport after crash landing

Another idiotic headline! Hardly a "crash" landing and what do they think would happen when you land with the nose gear up?

J.O.

10th Nov 2017, 14:15

Is this the first time the nose gear has had problems on a DHC-8? Its usually the main gear.

No. Google revealed at least four and I didn't bother scrolling down to look for more.

fjencl

10th Nov 2017, 14:27

https://stv.tv/news/north/1401960-scottish-flybe-plane-makes-crash-landing-after-emergency/

Fostex

10th Nov 2017, 14:47

https://www.flickr.com/photos/97499763@N06/38277093122/

G-JEDU

birmingham

10th Nov 2017, 15:21

The DH8D has around one significant gear issue a month, it has been that way for years. This is significantly more than its competitor the ATR, although a fair share of its incidents are also gear related. What is clear is that turboprops suffer gear issues much more regularly than their pure jet cousins. Given that only a small percentage of these fleets will regularly use rough strips it seems odd that this should still be the case.

tescoapp

10th Nov 2017, 15:26

I suspect its the length of average sector and with the Q400 the average firmness of landings. 10 sectors a day for a TP I wouldn't consider unusual.

Someone told me its 2.1G before its classed as a hard landing for q400.

The Ancient Geek

10th Nov 2017, 15:38

There are several factors involved.
Short sectors mean more landings per day.
Shorter runways encourage firmer contact and harder braking.
Slower approach speeds make turboprops more vulnerable to crosswind gusts and the associated gear abuse.
Less experienced crews could also be a factor.

In this case the crew handled it well and everyone walked away. They will almost certainly be able to use the aircraft again so it qualifies as a decent landing.

Good job well done.

tescoapp

10th Nov 2017, 15:41

maybe this would explain a bit.

https://youtu.be/lP35ULU6IcQ

https://youtu.be/SHJuFsp_w8I

eZathras

10th Nov 2017, 15:42

The Belfast Telegraph site has been updated with a video showing the landing.

Miles Magister

10th Nov 2017, 15:44

2.1 G is not a hard landing. G meters can not determine a landing force. The meters get jarred just like dropping a clock so show erroneous readings. The only way to measure a landing is by the rate of descent at touch down. From memory only, the CS25 minimum standard is 650'/min and most a/c are certified to 850'/min which means you can fly the ILS straight into the runway without any flare at all and still not do a heavy landing. approx 750'/min equate to 3g in your terms.

The main cause of heavy landings is people flaring, floating then loosing lift and dropping like a stone. Bad technique. If you flare and let it settle you will never ever do a hard landing in your life.

tescoapp

10th Nov 2017, 15:55

The G reading recorded on a TP is a normalised value with a combination of aircraft weight and deceleration in the Z axis. Which then spits out a value which can be graded by the gingers.

Having been on a Q400 when its done a normalised 1.8g landing it hit very very hard.

BTW I agree with MM its usually people prolonging the flare and trying to do a greaser which is when they occur. The aircraft runs out of energy and drops out the sky.

Mr Joshua

10th Nov 2017, 15:59

Sweet soft touchdown. Some of those DASH 8s are getting old now but those high wing engines at least guarantee no bent props with nose gear failure. Well done. She should be flying again in no time.

Capot

10th Nov 2017, 16:31

A comment from "AME" on Avherald may provide a clue....

This aircraft incured damage to the NLG doors on 2nd Nov due to retraction/extension issues. Guess what they rectified was not the root cause of the problem.

J.O.

10th Nov 2017, 18:41

The thread title should be changed. This was not a crash landing, it was a controlled response to a defective landing gear.

Tech Guy

10th Nov 2017, 19:46

Looks like a particularly smooth landing all things considered. Good job by the crew.

cappt

10th Nov 2017, 19:57

The main cause of heavy landings is people flaring, floating then loosing lift and dropping like a stone. Bad technique. If you flare and let it settle you will never ever do a hard landing in your life.

Oh, OK. I'll try that.

hiflymk3

10th Nov 2017, 20:47

If the airlines sued the manufacturer. Bombardier wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Jhieminga

10th Nov 2017, 20:58

Has a report been published about the Flybe Q400 gear collapse on landing in Amsterdam yet?
Not yet, keep an eye on this page: https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2322/main-landing-gear-collaped-during-landing-bombardier-q400-23-february-2017

birmingham

11th Nov 2017, 08:38

The thread title should be changed. This was not a crash landing, it was a controlled response to a defective landing gear.

I disagree. A technical failure meant that the crew where completely unable to avoid impacting the runway. The fact that it was handled impeccably by the crew doesn't change that in any way.

One person was taken to hospital and many were badly shaken up. But for the professionalism of the crew and some luck with the weather people could have died. It is a dangerous precedent when stuff like this can be categorised by airlines as an operational issue!

It was a minor crash landing incident on the scale of things but a crash landing nonetheless.

nivsy

11th Nov 2017, 10:23

Absolutely. Must bare in mind some of the comments on this forum next time as a fare paying pax when something goes wrong on the Dash 8 landing gear...remind myself this is not a crash landing but merely a controlled malfunction landing! Must pay more for that...

Uplinker

11th Nov 2017, 13:25

The crew landed 'normally' on both main landing gears. They kept the aircraft safe and under control, and lowered the nose onto the tarmac as gently as they could. Had there been anything they were not comfortable with after the mains touched, (for example; directional control), they could have gone around for another attempt or diverted to another airport. The situation was under control.

In no way was this a "crash" landing - a crash implies a violent and uncontrollable impact.

In no way did the aircraft 'skid to a halt', (as reported by the newspaper). 'Skid' implies having no control over direction of travel or speed.

Please, passengers, journalists and other non pilots: can you at least understand the differences here and not be so sensationalist.

Very well done, the crew of that Flybe Dash. Good job ! :ok:

Pilot DAR

11th Nov 2017, 13:38

I agree with the suggestion that it was not a "crash". It certainly seems that the crew landed the aircraft as they intended, maintaining control throughout until the aircraft stopped (perhaps nosewheel steering excepted). I see this as being similar to landing with a locked brake, or following a birdstrike - the aircraft returned damaged, but it was never out of control.

For this reason, I believe that we are much further from pilotless airplanes than some futurists would like us to dream.

Hotel Tango

11th Nov 2017, 13:52

Please, passengers, journalists and other non pilots: can you at least understand the differences here and not be so sensationalist.

LOL, You will be lucky. All sense of reality has left us for ever thanks to social media. Very depressing!

edmundronald

12th Nov 2017, 13:28

As a journo, hack, etc I think I may venture an opinion. I think you're being a bit pilot-centric here: such a landing can shut down the runway for a while. This is an item of local news, for anyone whose living is connected with that airport or who needs to fly through.

A landing without nose gear such as here would presumably -I'm SLF- require alerting the fire trucks, have a supervisor ready in the tower in case something goes pear-shape and the runway gets polluted or blocked or ambulances are required. There is a strong possibility that following aircraft may have to divert even if all that happens is a runway excursion. Or do you intend to message that that the exact outcome of a no-nosegear landing is perfectly predictable, that the plane will taxi to stand and take off for the next sector after a 20 minute turnaround?

A phrase is needed for the act of safely landing a plane on the runway, albeit in an abnormal fashion such that the airport's processes may be impacted.

birmingham

12th Nov 2017, 13:43

The definition of a crash is when a vehicle impacts something resulting in damage to the vehicle (don't take my word for it see the OED). If you have a minor crash in your car you may well be able to retain a degree of control. This was a crash. A quite minor crash, a crash where the crew maintained a high degree of control but unequiocally a crash. As a pilot I do not consider an impact a normal outcome of a revenue sector on a commercial aircraft. So I really don't think it matters if you are a pilot, journalist or member of the public. When Bombardier considered this failure mode the desired outcome was manual gear extension maybe with the added problem of loss of nosewheel steering. Of that failed and there was an impact then the thing was designed to minimise the consequences of such an event.

edmundronald

12th Nov 2017, 15:03

Birmingham,

I would suggest the general term "disabled landing", which messages that the aircraft is flying under control but at the very least not fully functional, needs special landing conditions, and suggests it will not be functional immediately after.

I am sure that pilots could and indeed should find a term that would be forthright while satisfactory to their community and the press. some of the terminology adopted for describing irregular events eg. CFIT is excessively euphemistic.

Big Pistons Forever

12th Nov 2017, 15:38

The news report said a passenger had a hurt hand. I am guessing he sprained his thumb in his panic trying to text his lawyer :rolleyes:

Uplinker

12th Nov 2017, 16:01

The definition of "crash" in my Collins dictionary is:

5. to cause (an aircraft) to land violently resulting in severe damage or (of an aircraft) to land in this way.

Neither part of that definition even remotely describes how the Flybe Dash in question landed at Belfast, and this is why the use of the term "crash landing" to describe this incident is inaccurate (and sensationalist).

Yes, the emergency services would have been called and asked to attend the landing - as a perfectly sensible safety precaution. Also, yes the runway would have been blocked until a) The pilots and fire crews determined that the aircraft and its occupants were safe, and b) A means was found to move the aircraft from the runway.

So, yes the incident might have been newsworthy but it was not a "crash landing" because there was no crash. Do you say you crashed your car when you scrape the side or the alloys against a post when driving out of the supermarket car park?.

Perhaps "abnormal landing" would convey better a situation like this where an aircraft safely alighted on a runway with a high degree of control, but nevertheless an abnormal configuration, such as having no nose-wheel deployed.

birmingham

12th Nov 2017, 16:04

Edmund

I agree. There are many euphemistic terms such as CFIT and your diabled landing would indeed suffice here. But I am not sure why crash is so anathema to many pilots. After all if a truck strikes a plane it is called a collision not something euphmistic like a ground handling error!

This was indeed a "disabled landing" which caused a minor crash which the airport,crew and aircraft were fully prepared to deal with.

My problem with some of us in the aviation industry is that we seem to have fallen into the trap of using pr spin to describe everything e.g. smaller seats is 'densification" or "providing an enhanced passenger experience".
CFIT is a useful term which qualifies rather than replaces accident.

This was a minor crash resulting from an NLG failure. The pilots followed the checklists, used their skill and experience and the aircraft was designed to withstand the incident. So more a question of s@!# happens so we prepare.

Duchess_Driver

12th Nov 2017, 16:22

But I am not sure why crash is so anathema

Possibly because it implies a smoking hole in the ground. Regardless of what the OED says, that's what generally peoples first impression is when you hear the term. Lots of bits of aircraft, smoke, blood, limbs etc. Its human nature (unfortunately). Nothing more than morbid curiosity.

The media hype we find ourselves surrounded by is nothing more than sensationalism to sell column inches. People wouldn't look twice if the headline said "Passengers safe and well after well trained crew do their jobs".

This was in my opinion nothing to write home about.... an emergency landing resulting from the abnormal operation of an on board system. With all due respect to the two up front and the girls and boys down the back - these are the situations where we earn our money as pilots and cabin crew. It's what we're paid to do - our primary function - to keep those in our trust safe.

I am guessing he sprained his thumb in his panic trying to text his lawyer

Not quite...grabbing his bag from the overhead locker. (apparently)

birmingham

12th Nov 2017, 16:38

Ok I accept I seem to be in the minority but incidents can be underplayed as well as sensationalised. I have never landed an aircraft without a nose wheel and despite the assurance of many here that it is perfectly normal and it is what I am trained to do, I for one am in no rush to try! Well done to the Flybe crew.

eZathras

14th Nov 2017, 12:56

There is an interview with one of the passengers on the Belfast Telegraph web-site now, which praises the pilot and crew, and says that the landing was so smooth that he didn't know they had landed.

jack11111

14th Nov 2017, 21:20

No crash, no CFIT. Abnormal ops after landing gear malfunction.

Uplinker

16th Nov 2017, 09:32

Strewth.

From Collins Concise English Dictionary:
Collide 1. to crash together with a violent impact. 2. to conflict, clash, disagree.

Aircraft do not "collide" with the runway, they land on it.

Question: Did the Jetblue A320 with the nosewheel stuck at 90 degrees "crash" or "collide" when it landed at LAX some years ago?

Answer: No.

If you don't believe me have a look on youtube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVNZkYSht4

birmingham

16th Nov 2017, 11:22

Folks we are getting hung up on semantics here.

What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.

So I will bow to your desire to use the word crash or collision. As pilots we are trained how to respond to such situations to work the lists and manage the problem. We practice a whole variety of situations in the simulator on a regular basis.

As a pilot what I cannot and will not accept is the normalising of this and the suggestion that because it happens every now and again it is somehow an unremarkable, everyday occurrence, move on nothing to see here.

In all my experience I have never landed an a/c with any of the gear up. Indeed I have been fortunate enough never to have experienced more than a (very) minor tire deflation. I have never scraped a runway with any part of the airframe. I have never ended up being unable to vacate a runway. I doubt that I have been especially lucky.

This accident, incident, nonevent however you want to categorise it was;
a. Newsworthy
b. Undesireable
c. Very expensive
d. A major career event for both crew involved

There are lots of situations which can be fun in the simulator but I would prefer not to do for real with a load of lives back there.

DaveReidUK

16th Nov 2017, 12:53

What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.

The term "crash" does not appear in ICAO Annex 13, nor in the ADREP or ECCAIRS Occurrence Category definitions.

This event would be classified as an Abnormal Runway Contact (ARC), preceded in this case by a System/Component Failure or Malfunction (SCF-NP).

There's little point in arguing about semantics in a professional forum when our industry already has a taxonomy that's widely accepted.

Pilot DAR

16th Nov 2017, 16:25

Pilot DAR

16th Nov 2017, 16:45

In my work writing flight manual supplements for both fixed and rotor wing aircraft, I have had serious discussions with regulators that the word "crash" sometimes be used in at flight manual - here's why:

Much more so for rotorcraft than fixed wing, there can be situations where being on the surface as soon as possible is best. Examples of this include a uncontrolled fire, but more so, a transmission failure in a helicopter = the rotor may stop turning.

I have asserted that for such conditions, the commonly used term of "land immediately" is actually a trap for conscientious pilots. If I, as a pilot, am instructed to land an aircraft, I'll infer that I should find a place to put the aircraft where it may be reusable after I'm done. I may have to explain to someone why damage was done if I don't do a good job.

On the other hand, if for such critical conditions, like the rotor may stop turning in a minute or two, if the prevailing instruction to the pilot is to "crash" the aircraft, the pilot will clearly know that the intended outcome of their effort will be a crashed aircraft really close to the place on the flight path where that critical condition was detected. They're not going to fly onward to look for a place to "land", they'll just put it down where they are, as safely as they can. Of course, any pilot who has read and understood the instruction to crash an aircraft will still do their best to preserve life as best they can, so I'm not worried about them simply holding the nose down and closing their eyes.

If the pilots of a Cougar S-92 flight off Newfoundland were instructed to crash (ditch) the helicopter rather than "land immediately" they would be alive.

I opine that the word "crash" can be very useful, in the right circumstances. Helicopter drops onto a sports field and rolls over; news report says it "crashed". We all agree, because the pilot followed the FM instructions, and crashed it, 'cause of a transmission warning. It all lines up well....

birmingham

16th Nov 2017, 16:50

I doubt that either pilot went to the Chief Pilot's office and said "I crashed the plane". They reported that they landed as normally as possible, knowing that the nose gear would not extend. Damage occurred, airplanes are repairable, and consumable.

I'm sure they didn't and nobody has suggested anything other than the crew dealt with this professionally. I agreed to give up on the term crash several threads ago. My point was not to normalise incidents of this type.

Can we agree on accident? (albeit a minor one) That is how AH categorises it. And it will clearly be subject to an AAIB investigation

DaveReidUK

16th Nov 2017, 18:15

If the pilots of a Cougar S-92 flight off Newfoundland were instructed to crash (ditch) the helicopter rather than "land immediately" they would be alive.

You could equally argue that if the crew had obeyed the "land immediately" stipulation in the RFM ("Ditching or landing in hazardous terrain is preferable to continuing flight") they would have survived, too.

Can we agree on accident? (albeit a minor one) That is how AH categorises it. And it will clearly be subject to an AAIB investigation

I wouldn't pay too much attention to how AH categorises an event, but in this case it almost certainly satisfies the Annex 13 definition of an accident (which is dependent on the degree of structural damage sustained).

edmundronald

17th Nov 2017, 15:04

What is an abnormal event for a pilot may be a fairly normal one for the ground crews, as they routinely do TENS of landings AN HOUR all day long. They probably face one abnormal situation a month, it's not theory to them. Thus I'm saying that a term is needed to describe the fact a LANDING AT THE AIRPORT is abnormal.It's the equivalent of the airport crew declaring an emergency. This term could then be used in reporting to explain an airport shutdown, with no need to panic the readers. As in "Flight XXX blew a tire on departure, dumped fuel, and effected an abnormal landing, leading to a 2 hour closure of XXX and the diversion of some traffic to YYY".

Folks we are getting hung up on semantics here.

What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.

So I will bow to your desire to use the word crash or collision. As pilots we are trained how to respond to such situations to work the lists and manage the problem. We practice a whole variety of situations in the simulator on a regular basis.

As a pilot what I cannot and will not accept is the normalising of this and the suggestion that because it happens every now and again it is somehow an unremarkable, everyday occurrence, move on nothing to see here.

In all my experience I have never landed an a/c with any of the gear up. Indeed I have been fortunate enough never to have experienced more than a (very) minor tire deflation. I have never scraped a runway with any part of the airframe. I have never ended up being unable to vacate a runway. I doubt that I have been especially lucky.

This accident, incident, nonevent however you want to categorise it was;
a. Newsworthy
b. Undesireable
c. Very expensive
d. A major career event for both crew involved

There are lots of situations which can be fun in the simulator but I would prefer not to do for real with a load of lives back there.